Is it better to be a believer or an athiest?

[Random]

Sorry that my means of debate show the inadequacy of your argument.

You've shown nothing.

 

[Magic Man]

You've shown nothing.

Not to you, but I think it's obvious that you can't be shown anything.

 

[+Xausted]

to attack our attacks....wow, we can never win can we. better just give in an except God is real then *big sigh*

 

[Random]

Not to you, but I think it's obvious that you can't be shown anything.

I can if you've got something substantial to show. What have you got? Tell me. Do you think you know me?

 

[Magic Man]

I can if you've got something substantial to show. What have you got? Tell me. Do you think you know me?

Do you think that when I say the word "God", that that sound is God, or is it something the human mind came up with to signify the concept of God?

 

[Random]

Do you think that when I say the word "God", that that sound is God, or is it something the human mind came up with to signify the concept of God?

I don't know what you mean by "God", because what you mean God most probably isn't what I mean. For example, what are you referring to by "sound of God"? And if you're talking about what I think you're talking about, then yes, it is something the mind uses to signify God -- but what of it? As subjective proof of some possible transcendence, it is fairly convincing in my estimation.

 

[Magic Man]

I don't know what you mean by "God", because what you mean God most probably isn't what I mean. For example, what are you referring to by "sound of God"? And if you're talking about what I think you're talking about, then yes, it is something the mind uses to signify God -- but what of it? As subjective proof of some possible transcendence, it is fairly convincing in my estimation.

The point was that the word "God" is just another sign, along with our mental image that we get when we hear the word, for the signified, which is something much more than just our word or mental image.

 

[doppelganger]

How do YOU know I'm confused,

By the manifestations of apparent confusion in what you've written. If you think there is no difference between words and that for which they serve as symbols, then there's no room to "explain" and no reason to try to do so. You have the one and only truth intrinsic for everyone nicely packaged in your symbols. End of discussion.

and what gives you the right to patronize me this way?

What do "rights" have to do with any of this? In any case, I'm just pointing out that there's no discussion to be had here.

 

[Random]

By the manifestations of apparent confusion in what you've written. If you think there is no difference between words and that for which they serve as symbols, then there's no room to "explain" and no reason to try to do so. You have the one and only truth intrinsic in your sysmbols. End of discussion.

I appreciate your intelligence and value your opinion, always on this forum. That's why I have one last statement on this and I hope you will reply.

You see a degree of seperation necessary to comprehend words and the things they are symbols for, and I agree this is useful in avoiding confusion. That is a well beaten path. But...

As regards God, can there be any meaningful seperation beyond mere intellectual comprehension of the relationship between words and symbols? In a mystical sense, there can be none, IMO. For as the book says, the Word was made Flesh, right? And the Word was God. Understand what I'm getting at? Beyond the mind, in that Zen pleroma of consciousness, there is no division, because the crisis of spirit that arises from the seperation from God or the Word makes one undertake the journey beyond mind in the first place. That is why I said God as symbol and thing signified are the same - not because the symbol of the Old Man in the Sky has any actuality as Deity.

Finally, if God is only a symbol, then what is the thing it signifies other than Mystery?

Thanks again for the discussion, I hope you don't think I'm too awkward to advise or remonstrate with.

 

[Random]

The point was that the word "God" is just another sign, along with our mental image that we get when we hear the word, for the signified, which is something much more than just our word or mental image.

So, God is no-thing other than a sign. Fine. Now tell me; what is signified, and where does the sign lead?

 

[Magic Man]

Finally, if God is only a symbol, then what is the thing it signifies other than Mystery?

Exactly, "God" is a symbol for the Mysteries of life.

 

[Magic Man]

So, God is no-thing other than a sign. Fine. Now tell me; what is signified, and where does the sign lead?

As I just replied, the signified is Mystery. The sign just helps us communicate.

 

[Random]

As I just replied, the signified is Mystery.

I understand.

The sign just helps us communicate.

God as limited to a linguistic construct. If this is all God is, I will be very disappointed...

 

[Magic Man]

I understand.



God as limited to a linguistic construct. If this is all God is, I will be very disappointed...

I'm not saying that's all God is. The word represents something. It's just a question of what the something is. That's why it's a mystery.

 

[Random]

I'm not saying that's all God is. The word represents something. It's just a question of what the something is. That's why it's a mystery.

I don't like mysteries, though. I like them when they're solved...

 

[Magic Man]

I don't like mysteries, though. I like them when they're solved...

I've noticed.

 

[doppelganger]

I appreciate your intelligence and value your opinion, always on this forum. That's why I have one last statement on this and I hope you will reply.

Don't get me wrong, Conor, I value your ideas and your creativity as I've said many times before. You seem to have lost a great deal of clarity of late. Perhaps you've been rolling with the wrong crowd.

You see a degree of seperation necessary to comprehend words and the things they are symbols for, and I agree this is useful in avoiding confusion. That is a well beaten path. But...

Not quite. I see that if I'm not conscious of how words and symbols give form to reality as I experience, I will be enslaved by those symbols and trapped in one limited perspective, unable to communicate effectively or have the willingness to try to understand a different perspective. I specifically try to avoid falling under the delusion that anyone has an obligation to do the same, instead, contenting myself with understanding where they are coming from. But having said that, I find that mystics consistently practice this sort of construct awareness and my past dealings with you suggested that you understood this. So I was a little surprised to see you equate a word with the experience it connotes.

As regards God, can there be any meaningful seperation beyond mere intellectual comprehension of the relationship between words and symbols?

Once you label it "God" it becomes a thing - a divided up piece of reality to which one relates. We are limited to doing so by the tools of grammar. Which is why, without fail, the mystical chorus has always proclaimed that (insert metaphor here) is ineffable.

For as the book says, the Word was made Flesh, right? And the Word was God. Understand what I'm getting at?

No. You'll have to flesh it out a bit more.

Beyond the mind, in that Zen pleroma of consciousness, there is no division

And hence no "God" or any other noun - proper or otherwise. And no subject of that experience. Otherwise, all you're describing is an interpreted reflection by a very rooted "I am."

the crisis of spirit that arises from the seperation from God or the Word makes one undertake the journey beyond mind in the first place.

But the journey is also an illusion. A shadow cast by that very separation. Without the separation being the bedrock of experience, there is no "journey beyond the mind."

Finally, if God is only a symbol, then what is the thing it signifies other than Mystery?

I can't say. :rainbow1:

 

[Willamena]

It probably does, but, unless you're superhuman, then there's no way you can have all the answers. You can think you have them, as some people do, but it's impossible for our limitted minds to comprehend the totality of what is called "God".

Ha. You're a traveller, Matt. You've moved into a new camp this week, all clothed in new ideas again. I don't mean that as a bad thing, not at all.

Here's another idea for you, from a camp just up the road. You already have all the answers.

 

[Random]

You seem to have lost a great deal of clarity of late. Perhaps you've been rolling with the wrong crowd.

U.G. Krishnamurti said "Everything is born of frustration". I've been frustrated by the constant argumentation of my friends (who are all non-believers) and on this forum. I am ashamed to admit I find myself occasionally making arguments for things I don't actually believe in. It's like trying to find a path where there's only a dead end...

Not quite. I see that if I'm not conscious of how words and symbols give form to reality as I experience, I will be enslaved by those symbols and trapped in one limited perspective, unable to communicate effectively or have the willingness to try to understand a different perspective. I specifically try to avoid falling under the delusion that anyone has an obligation to do the same, instead, contenting myself with understanding where they are coming from. But having said that, I find that mystics consistently practice this sort of construct awareness and my past dealings with you suggested that you understood this. So I was a little surprised to see you equate a word with the experience it connotes.

I do get it. But names are very important, and sometimes the experience so vast and all-encompassing, the temptation to label and categorize it leads to a (false) equivalence. Exhaustion of/with the consequences of belief, you might call it.

Once you label it "God" it becomes a thing - a divided up piece of reality to which one relates. We are limited to doing so by the tools of grammar. Which is why, without fail, the mystical chorus has always proclaimed that (insert metaphor here) is ineffable.

Yes, but God the Ineffable One is a feckless surreality. That God won't save anyone, or fight evil, or give meaning to one's life. That God is a useless construct of the mind, like a little program working in your head that wants you to "wash-rinse-repeat..." ad infinatum. That's why I can only relate to a Higher Intelligence through the "I AM" you mention heretofore...

No. You'll have to flesh it out a bit more.

I was attempting to illustrate my point using an idea from the Gospel of John. I should perhaps know better than to lean on my own understanding of Scripture...

And hence no "God" or any other noun - proper or otherwise. And no subject of that experience. Otherwise, all you're describing is an interpreted reflection by a very rooted "I am."

Yes, that's what I have been doing for 5 odd years now. I still don't see where I'm going wrong, if I am...

But the journey is also an illusion. A shadow cast by that very separation. Without the separation being the bedrock of experience, there is no "journey beyond the mind."

You start back where you finish because you never left the spot in the first place. It's like taking steps in a circle - look down, up or all-around and you see the same things over and over. Not least yourself.

I can't say. :rainbow1:

Your humility does you justice. But solving mysteries is my gig; I can't stand not knowing, even though that itself may be God (I remember your sigline...).

 

[Magic Man]

Ha. You're a traveller, Matt. You've moved into a new camp this week, all clothed in new ideas again. I don't mean that as a bad thing, not at all.

Here's another idea for you, from a camp just up the road. You already have all the answers.

I can't wait till I get there.